Can Science be Used to say.?....God is NOT Life

[Thief]

just go for it

 

[ameyAtmA]

All i need is common sense.

God is the cause of what we call life, but yes, science is slowly acknowledging the Upanishadic Truths (axioms)

 

[Father Heathen]

just go for it

We'll need to get a specimen under the microscope first.

 

[exchemist]

Science cannot be used to say anything about God, as God is not a term with any scientific meaning.

It is hard enough to come with an unambiguous scientific definition of "life".

 

[Thief]

It is hard enough to come with an unambiguous scientific definition of "life".

well if you can't define life.....how then to define the Source?

 

[Valjean]

Science would first have to substantiate God. Then it could explore its qualities.

 

[McBell]

It is hard enough to come with an unambiguous scientific definition of "life".

And getting a meaningful working definition of god is even worse

 

[exchemist]

And getting a meaningful working definition of god is even worse

Yes very difficult, as no two religions quite agree.

But whatever religion one chooses, no definition of God results in objectively observable consequences in the physical world. That makes God a non-scientific idea.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See here.

 

[Audie]

All i need is common sense.

God is the cause of what we call life, but yes, science is slowly acknowledging the Upanishadic Truths (axioms)

Common sense only goes so far.

The counterintuitive is real too.

"Confronting, Representing, and Believing Counterintuitive Concepts: Navigating the Natural and the Supernatural" Confronting, Representing, and Believing Counterintuitive Concepts: Navigating the Natural and the Supernatural

 

[ChristineM]

just go for it

Science works in the natural world, not the world of supernatural or woo

 

[Audie]

Science works in the natural world, not the world of supernatural or woo

Natural world as in data rich environment,
as opposed to a data -free one.

 

[ChristineM]

Natural world as in data rich environment,
as opposed to a data -free one.

As in reality as opposed to make believe

 

[pearl]

Science cannot be used to say anything about God, as God is not a term with any scientific meaning.

It is hard enough to come with an unambiguous scientific definition of "life".

I think science is limited to acknowledging that God is not necessary for life, otherwise science strays into the field of theology.

 

[Thief]

Science works in the natural world, not the world of supernatural or woo

science only explains....HOW.....God did it

 

[ratiocinator]

science only explains....HOW.....God did it

Science can explain how but the "God did it" is a baseless and all but meaningless assertion.

 

[Audie]

I think science is limited to acknowledging that God is not necessary for life, otherwise science strays into the field of theology.

Please explain.

"God" has nothing to do with science.

Its only discussed when someone tries
to inject "god" or magic of any sort into
science.

Likewise with politics, which people
also try to involve in science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

well if you can't define life.....how then to define the Source?

The source is unknown. Science is a belief system. So is your religion. As long as you don't claim Objective Authority over the meaning of life and let the rest of humanity figure out how they individually do the meaning of life, you are okay. Because there is no objective answer to that, neither with science nor religion. Nor philosophy for that matter.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes very difficult, as no two religions quite agree.

But whatever religion one chooses, no definition of God results in objectively observable consequences in the physical world. That makes God a non-scientific idea.

Well, the subjective belief in God can lead to objectively observable consequences in the physical world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As in reality as opposed to make believe

Reality is a belief, just like God.